Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

When examining the star, located at the edges of the Cygnus and Lyra constellations, the researchers discovered that its carbon and oxygen core was twice as big as the theory predicted. "This is a major discovery that will force us to re-evaluate our view of how stars die," said Fontaine.

We find that the oxygen content and extent of its core exceed the predictions of existing models of stellar evolution. The central homogeneous core has a mass of 0.45 solar masses, and is composed of about 86 per cent oxygen by mass. These values are respectively 40 per cent and 15 per cent greater than those expected from typical white-dwarf models. These findings challenge present theories of stellar evolution and their constitutive physics, and open up an avenue for calibrating white-dwarf cosmochronology11.

When examining the star, located at the edges of the Cygnus and Lyra constellations, the researchers discovered that its carbon and oxygen core was twice as big as the theory predicted. "This is a major discovery that will force us to re-evaluate our view of how stars die," said Fontaine.

We find that the oxygen content and extent of its core exceed the predictions of existing models of stellar evolution. The central homogeneous core has a mass of 0.45 solar masses, and is composed of about 86 per cent oxygen by mass. These values are respectively 40 per cent and 15 per cent greater than those expected from typical white-dwarf models. These findings challenge present theories of stellar evolution and their constitutive physics, and open up an avenue for calibrating white-dwarf cosmochronology11.

Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of semantics, but I assumed "Stellar Metamorphosis" and "star evolution" to be one and the same, the study of stellar change with age, therefor information regarding the physical makeup of a star's core is relevant to a discussion of either EU or "mainstream" theories.

Is it the EU position that an attitude of total iconoclasm precludes examining any information generated by "mainstream" scientists?

Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of semantics, but I assumed "Stellar Metamorphosis" and "star evolution" to be one and the same, the study of stellar change with age, therefor information regarding the physical makeup of a star's core is relevant to a discussion of either EU or "mainstream" theories.

Is it the EU position that an attitude of total iconoclasm precludes examining any information generated by "mainstream" scientists?

Perhaps Jeffrey will have a better answer for you, but the mainstream stellar model depends on a nuclear fusion core. In a Plasma Universe, a star has been born from an electromagnetic z-pinch effect on large charged plasma streams (Birkland currents). There is no nuclear reaction in the core. Fusion of heavy elements only occur at the photosphere where we observe those spectral lines. Actually, a star only gains a core late in its evolution.

Stars are "hollow" and elements from the "surface" migrate towards the center in a process called Marklund Convection which occurs in plasma with an associated electric field. The elements are distributed depending on their ionization potential, and are electrostatically deposited to form layers on a central core much later in the star's evolution, as it cools down to start forming a planet, which will become the star's end product.

Theredore, those articles should be irrelevant to us as the star model they're using is flawed.

Maol wrote:Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of semantics, but I assumed "Stellar Metamorphosis" and "star evolution" to be one and the same

They are the same. Only, with stellar evolution people only imagine stars that have visible spectrums. Fact is, the vast majority of stars in the galaxy no longer have strong visible light spectrums, so the entire field of spectroscopy as well as the very basics of astronomy ignore most of stellar evolutionary processes.

Most stars are gaseous/liquid/solid structure. Astronomers call them "planets". So stellar evolution really is planet formation, thus the phrase stellar metamorphosis is more fitting. Esp when google searches only will find stellar evolution with stars always shining strongly in the visible spectrum, with stellar metamorphosis they will find all stars included, not just the ones that are in the visible spectrum.

Stellar metamorphosis is both planet formation AND stellar evolution.

Stellar evolution is outdated because it separates the old stars from the young ones.

It may sound just semantics oriented, but seriously, that is why the astronomers don't understand how planets form, they use the wrong words, and form a worldview that is false based on those words. So playing the game, "just semantics" is not good. "Just semantics" can destroy scientists' ability to understand nature and to do science.

When examining the star, located at the edges of the Cygnus and Lyra constellations, the researchers discovered that its carbon and oxygen core was twice as big as the theory predicted. "This is a major discovery that will force us to re-evaluate our view of how stars die," said Fontaine.

We find that the oxygen content and extent of its core exceed the predictions of existing models of stellar evolution. The central homogeneous core has a mass of 0.45 solar masses, and is composed of about 86 per cent oxygen by mass. These values are respectively 40 per cent and 15 per cent greater than those expected from typical white-dwarf models. These findings challenge present theories of stellar evolution and their constitutive physics, and open up an avenue for calibrating white-dwarf cosmochronology11.

Well firstly they have white dwarfs at the end of a star's evolution, which is false. They are at the beginning. A z-pinch can probably compress that material and strip away the electrons to form electron degenerate matter, so naturally they will be really dense and really hot. That's all I really got for now, but it is important to place them at the beginning, which is a complete reversal of mainstream's take. I don't think they will reverse it, because it would mean consensus for something that everybody believes is not true.

Establishment doesn't stand a chance against individual theorizers with better theory. They are too slow and institutionalized to make any real change in theory happen. It takes individuals who are not chained to income streams to make the required change, which is what I'm doing.

Electro wrote:Stars are "hollow" and elements from the "surface" migrate towards the center in a process called Marklund Convection which occurs in plasma with an associated electric field. The elements are distributed depending on their ionization potential, and are electrostatically deposited to form layers on a central core much later in the star's evolution, as it cools down to start forming a planet, which will become the star's end product.

yes, and most importantly this means that we can reverse engineer a star by studying the Earth and what was happening in the interior of them as they cooled and died, as Earth is the remains of that process.

Maol wrote:Thank you gentlemen, for the 'ah-ha' moment, introducing me to Marklund Convection.

Remember though, marklund convection is only one small part. There are thousands of processes that go into stellar evolution (planet formation). In fact, it is such a massive theory that any science applies to it.

Very informative, it seems with GTSM (probably only) we can really see how it is possible life can evolve on an evolving world. There is change, there is energy, there is chemistry, there is mobility, there is enough time... exciting.

Very informative, it seems with GTSM (probably only) we can really see how it is possible life can evolve on an evolving world. There is change, there is energy, there is chemistry, there is mobility, there is enough time... exciting.

Regards,Daniel

Yep. Definitely exciting. I just hope to help people understand establishment's version of water = life forming is extremely non-explanatory and fails to give meaning to observations. Just saying an object orbits in the "goldilocks zone" doesn't explain anything. In fact, it just begs the question. What if the world is dead and orbits in the goldilocks zone? See, it doesn't explain anything at all.

They still push 1950's stuff upon the public as if its factual/explanatory stuff. It isn't. It just makes us "???" all the time.

jfmorales wrote:If I understand correctly, a requirement of both electric sun and electric comet theory is that the solar wind is positively charged

No, this is a misunderstanding (it is not about pos/neg), the solar wind for electric sun and comet theory is (needs to be) an electrical field. An electric field is linear motion of charged particles. The solar wind is definitely made up of charged particles and needs be understood as being a plasma, because the electrons are smaller/lighter they move ahead of the protons, anything the solar wind encounters, electrons will reach a surface (comet/planet) first, they build up, any discharge event is where the ions recombine. Activity is a plasma recombination event.

Regards,Daniel

Plasma recombination is why young stars shine.

EU hasn't mentioned this simple fact in any of their documentation or videos. Its been over 6 years and they do not mention it anywhere.

Plasma recombination is a process by which positive ions of a plasma capture a free (energetic) electron and combine with electrons or negative ions to form new neutral atoms (gas). Recombination is an exothermic reaction, meaning heat releasing

As the plasma recombination feed back loops slow down and the neutral gas forms in larger amounts the star will slowly dim and cool/redden. Eventually stop shining, but only just release heat in the form of thermal radiation (infrared/brown dwarfs). The heat from the lower energy reactions then get internalized, allowing the star to continue being hot for very long periods of time as chemicals form in the interior forming the "planet".

That's what stars are. They are planet E-Z-Bakes.

They are all the same objects. Planets and stars are the same things, just different stages to their evolution.